Northern Ireland Bill

I was just beginning to give the reasons why I felt that new clauses 11 and 12 and the new schedule had many differences from the position in Scotland and elsewhere.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

In fact, the right hon. Gentleman had just been dealing with the interruption by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) drawing attention to the identity or near identity of amendment No. 26 with section 2(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1974. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, that being the context of the Convention, it is entirely different from the context which would be produced by a report from the Assembly under that Act, so that it would not strictly be true to say that section 2(3) of the 1974 Act was either a precedent or an analogy?

I would agree with that. I said that it was within the context of the Convention. That makes it different. I have more sympathy with the Democratic Unionist Party amendment than with the others. However, I still hope that the amendment will not be pressed to a Division.

I turn to new clauses 11 and 12 and the new schedule. I am aware that the proposed referendum question in the new schedule is the same as that which was put to the Scottish and Welsh electorates in 1978 and that the Conservative party was in favour of those referendums. It has also been pointed out that I voted for them. But I do not believe that a valid parallel can be drawn between Scotland and Wales, on the one hand, and Northern Ireland, on the other.

First, as I have said, Parliament could not be sure that the devolution proposals were acceptable to both sides of the community, unless a very high proportion of the electorate voted in favour of them. That is clear in a Northern Ireland context. Secondly, the Bill is different in character from the Scotland Act and the Wales Act in that it provides—indeed, this is a large element in the scheme—a framework in which elected representatives can seek agreement on devolution proposals. That is totally different from what was proposed in the Scotland and Wales Acts. Thirdly, Northern Ireland history, geography and political traditions suggest that the case for devolved government there is of a quite different order from that which might obtain elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

The central issue is, not whether there should be devolved government for Northern Ireland, but how it should operate. That is the point to which the Bill addresses itself. For those reasons, new clauses 11 and 12, which have been ingeniously devised from the Scotland Act 1978, are not required and are not suitable. If the Government were introducing predetermined arrangements for the exercise of devolved government in Northern Ireland, the case for a referendum might have rather more force, but it is for the elected representatives to produce proposals for the resumption of devolved government.

The first election to an Assembly will inevitably be contested by people with varying attitudes to the
287
Government's proposals. The main issue at that election is likely to be what attitudes should be adopted as regards the initial scrutinising and monitoring functions and the possibility of devolved government. In that sense the elections will constitute a type of referendum. When complex issues are involved, elections are a far more effective way of taking the views of the electorate. What matters is not agreement or disagreement in principle to the Government's proposals but a readiness to work them in practice.

A referendum with a positive majority, even if it were to tell us something about the composition of that majority throughout the community would be of little use if it was followed by elections in which those with negative attitudes to the Assembly were successful and vice versa. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will tell us that that can often be the case in the Northern Ireland context.

There are three possible ways of testing opinion in a democracy: by elections, by referendums and by opinion polls. Each is of some value according to circumstances. In my view, the prime and most reliable test is the first—elections. In this respect I share the view of the hon. Member for Antrim, North that the ballot box is what really matters.

I shall offer the House an illustration, which, in a sense, works against my proposals. If a referendum was held which produced a substantial majority in favour of the Government's proposals, which was then followed up by elections which returned a great majority of Members of the Assembly who were committed in varying degrees to opposing those same proposals, the elections would matter much more than the referendum. If the Government were introducing predetermined arrangements for the exercise of devolved government and were saying in advance exactly what was to happen, the case for a referendum would have rather more point. But it is really for the elected representatives themselves to produce proposals for the resumption of devolved government.

The first election to an Assembly will inevitably be contested by people with varying attitudes to the Government's proposals. A major issue is likely to be the attitude that should be adopted to the initial scrutinising and monitoring functions. When complex issues are involved we believe that elections are a more effective way of assessing the electorate's views.

Opinion polls are another way of assessing people's reactions. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has strong views about such polls. I share any experienced politician's caution about relying too much on opinion polls. In the Northern Ireland context the hon. Member for Antrim, North may be right to suggest that polls underestimate the support that he possesses.

Opinion polls have one practical advantage over referendums. The pollsters can ask a wide set of questions and analyse the results according to party, age and religion so that they show, more than a simple "Yes" or "No" to one or two referendum questions, whether support or opposition is concentrated in one community or another.

The results of the recent poll sponsored by and published in The Irish Times are of interest. They are of interest to some of my hon. Friends who have wondered whether our proposals have any support. For example, we
288
know not only that 60 per cent. of those polled were in favour of an elected Assembly but that 62 per cent. of the Protestants who responded and 51 per cent. of the Catholics were in favour.

Only 16 per cent. were against an Assembly. A total of 24 per cent. did not know. The poll breaks down the 16 per cent. so that we can see that hon. Members who regard the proposals for an Assembly with deep opposition are, according to the poll, expressing the views of 13 per cent. of Northern Ireland's Protestant population. We can see that those in the Republic and in Northern Ireland who have expressed opposition to the proposed Assembly on behalf of the minority community express the views of 21 per cent. of the Roman Catholic population. The figures are worth pondering, recognising that they are only opinion poll figures.

I agree with my right hon. Friend's reservation about opinion polls, which can be misleading. It would help if the Secretary of State could give an idea of the size of the sample to which he has referred. My impression is that the sample is so minute as to make the findings of no value.

The poll was taken in Northern Ireland. I am not trying to make out a case for opinion polls, but as polls go it was representative, and as accurate as polls are likely to be. I do not want to become too tied down in polls.

Why is my right hon. Friend quoting an opinion poll which seems to favour his argument when earlier he argued that he preferred the views of the elected representatives, the majority of whom seemed to be against the proposals?

The elected majority has not been tested on the proposals. What my hon. Friend says does not follow. Some hon. Members have asked what evidence I have that a large number of people in Northern Ireland favour my proposals. I am entitled to say that an opinion poll provides that evidence. I am not asking anyone to draw too many conclusions from that.

I am rather puzzled by what is going on. Beside my right hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench is the Under-Secretary, who rebuked me roundly for presuming to quote from a public opinion poll. So I said that I would not go in for quoting polls. Now my right hon. Friend says that we should all pay great attention to the results of public opinion polls. Might I ask whether the main question put to the victims of that poll refers to the Assembly or to the Bill as a whole?

I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State rebuked my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest—certainly not about quoting public opinion polls. It was more about his interpretation of public opinion polls.

My view remains that this kind of opinion—welcome though it may be in suggesting that the vehemence with which my proposals have been denounced by party leaders is not necessarily an indication of the opinion of the people of Northern Ireland—offers a no more secure basis for progress towards devolution than would a referendum result. That I accept. What really matter are elections.

I end on that note, because in my view elections are what matter. The election to the Assembly will be the best manner in which we can move to the preparation of
290
devolution proposals, which in turn can be placed in front of the House, and this House will be better able to judge whether the proposals match the requirements of clause 1(4)(a) and (b) better than any other referendum or public opinion poll might do. Given all the other difficulties with referendums, particularly in the context of Northern Ireland, it would be better to do as we have done on a number of other occasions and regard Northern Ireland as involving slightly different circumstances from those of the rest of the United Kingdom. By accepting that the circumstances are rather different, surely that is the best manner in which we can help Northern Ireland to remain a wanted part of the United Kingdom, sharing the full benefits which I believe that that brings.

In rising to speak to amendment No. 26, I am sure that I shall please the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who seemed a little concerned that the Democratic Unionist Party was not intending to speak.

I speak following a most remarkable contribution from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He appears to say that while the ballot box must be the final arbiter in these matters, he is prepared to accept only a certain type of ballot. To him, the ballot box is worthy of consideration only if it is electing personalities, not if it is to vote for issues. It is the same ballot box and the same people putting in pieces of paper, and that is what I am asking the Secretary of State, in what is a most reasonable amendment, to accept.

Is the Secretary of State saying that, after whatever length of time he takes under clause 1(4) to notify the Assembly that he is satisfied that
the substance of the proposals is likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community
he will say "An opinion poll has been undertaken by a Republic of Ireland opinion poll research firm and the results have been printed in a Republic newspaper showing that there is great support for the proposal and, therefore, it is one that I can commend to the House of Commons"? Having heard the right hon. Gentleman's glowing comments about opinion polls, I assume that if such a poll were taken—it could be convenient for a poll research organisation to do so—the right hon. Gentleman would heed the results rather than have the proper—

I am following the hon. Gentleman's line of argument. My right hon. Friend may have it in mind to employ the resources of the Northern Ireland Office to conduct its own opinion poll, thereby ensuring that the answer will always be right.

It is not unknown in Ulster history for opinion polls to be conducted in the most convenient way. I think back to the time of Terence O'Neill, when the most convenient results were obtained from polls. I do not know whether they were taken to the Northern Ireland Office and published thereafter. Certainly the results did not accord with the well known and later expressed views of the Northern Ireland electorate.

I hate to dampen the Secretary of State's enthusiasm for opinion polls—I am sorry that I have to refer so much to polls, but the Secretary of State referred to them and said that they are an alternative to referendums—but I must remind him of some of the results that have been obtained over the past few years. I think especially of the poll that was conducted prior to the European Assembly elections. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), used the results of an opinion poll that showed that moderation was coming to Northern Ireland and predicted that the representatives of the Official Unionist Party and those of the Alliance Party would sweep the boards and be elected to the Assembly. The poll revealed that the Democratic Unionist Party and the SDLP would be kicked to the side. Indeed, it showed that the Democratic Unionist Party leader, who was appointed by my party to be the candidate, would get only 8 per cent. of the vote and that John Hume would get only
292
2 per cent. more than that. The result of the election was that the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party topped the poll, getting more votes than the two Official Unionist Party representatives put together, while the leader of the SDLP took second place. I wonder how the Secretary of State can explain that if he thinks that opinion polls give anything like an accurate result.

Prior to the 1981 local government elections, an opinion poll showed that the Official Unionist Party was to get 41 per cent. of the electorate's support and that the Democratic Unionist Party was to get 19 per cent. The result of the election showed that the Democratic Unionist Party had slightly more votes than the Official Unionist Party and any other political party. If the Secretary of State is to use opinion polls as his means of deciding whether there is widespread acceptance of his proposals, he should consider a better alternative.

I am pleased to offer the right hon. Gentleman a better alternative. It is one that was provided in the Northern Ireland Act 1974 for the Convention. I think that the right hon. Member for Down, South has been slightly pedantic in his approach to the Assembly because basically it will end up as a convention that will look for and bring forward proposals. There is not a great difference between the two concepts. The Secretary of State is happy to clutch at the straw offered by the right hon. Gentleman but he should not clutch it too tightly.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that when this issue was put to the select few in Northern Ireland, many of them may have thought that the Secretary of State's proposals would restore Stormont? There is considerable support in Ulster for the restoration of Stormont, as many in Northern Ireland remember it. Is it not for that reason that the results of the opinion poll to which my right hon. Friend referred were as favourable to his point of view and his proposals as he has highlighted to the Committee?

I cannot give the answer to the hon. Gentleman because his guess is as good as anyone else's as to the thinking of whoever the faceless people were who were interviewed by the opinion pollsters. It appears from the opinion polls that the answers given are the answers that the interviewee believes that the interviewer wants to hear. That seems to be what often happens. The interviewee's impression of the interviewer is shown in his answer rather than his own views.

Is it the hon. Gentleman's view that the people of Ulster see in the proposals a restoration of Stormont, giving them the authority and power that they had prior to the abolition of Stormont, which is why the people of Ulster are perhaps relatively favourably disposed towards the Government's proposals?

I do not accept that it was an accurate opinion poll, but, if one accepted that, that could be the belief. It is the opinion of many people in Northern Ireland that the Secretary of State's proposals could be the first step towards getting some real and meaningful Stormont structure in Northern Ireland. Therefore, prior to today, many people in Northern Ireland were saying that they were prepared to give the Bill a chance.

I shall mention amendment No. 26 specifically, which deals with discretionary referendums. What we are asking for in the amendment is not something that is binding, or
293
is forced upon the Secretary of State, but which gives him the power, should he wish to use it, to clarify in his mind the views of the electorate on specific issues. Therefore, I see little reason why the Secretary of State should stand back from our amendment. It is a reasoned and reasonable amendment, which I should have thought the Secretary of State would find to be an extra weapon in his arsenal, should he wish to use it.

I should have thought that the Secretary of State would have the most secure argument if he were to go to the people of Northern Ireland and gain their support through a referendum. How could any of the politicians about whom the Secretary of State is most exasperated, who oppose his measures, say a word in the House if the Secretary of State were to come to the House with the result of a referendum tucked under his arm and say "You might say that you are opposed to this measure, but because you have a vested interest in the matter here is what the people of Northern Ireland say." Surely the Secretary of State would have the most powerful of arguments in those circumstances.

I wonder why the Secretary of State is shying away from such a reasonable proposition. In his introduction of the Bill and his forcing of it through the House, is not the Secretary of State claiming, at the same time, to have the support of the people of Northern Ireland without testing it. Is it the hope that at a later stage something just as obnoxious could be put before the House without testing it, with the Secretary of State claiming to the House of Commons that it has the support of the people of Northern Ireland.

I make one point to the Secretary of State with considerable regret. There are at least two types of people in the Committee. There are those, first, who genuinely wish to have devolved structures in Northern Ireland, both executive and legislative, and who are doing their best to make the Secretary of State's Bill into something that is not dangerous to those whom they represent and, moreover, which can work in the Province. A second set of people—I do not agree with them, but I respect their views—do not want devolved structures at all. They use the obnoxious clauses of the Secretary of State's Bill to scuttle any prospect of devolution. As someone in the first category, I regret that the Secretary of State has not found himself able to accept even the most reasonable amendment. It appears to many of us that the right hon. Gentleman intends to walk roughshod over whatever may be the views of the Northern Ireland representatives and to push through the Bill.

There is one exception. I invite the Secretary of State to take this opportunity to show that he is sincere and genuine in wanting to achieve a measure that has the support of some people in Northern Ireland by accepting an amendment that does nothing to cut away the roots of the Bill but which can offer strength to the Bill and, at the same time, provide a safeguard to the people of Northern Ireland should he try, at a later stage, to bring forward legislation that is not supported.

The lessons of history show the dangers that can be involved. I wonder if I need remind the Secretary of State and the Committee of what happened in 1974 when a Secretary of State set up a Northern Ireland Executive in the belief that the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland at that time commanded widespread support. The Secretary of State claimed that the Executive had the approval of the people of Northern Ireland. On the basis
294
that the people had voted for these representatives the Secretary of State considered that the natural consequence was to establish the Executive. If there had been a test by referendum, Northern Ireland could have been saved much of the suffering that followed. If the present Secretary of State was to seek support in a referendum—

The hon. Gentleman will recall the circumstances leading up to the election in 1973. Will he not agree that if the politicians standing for election at the time had been more honest with the electorate about their intentions after they were elected, they would never have been elected? Does this not indicate that one should be absolutely honest with the electorate about what is contained in the Bill?

The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) speaks with great candour. I am sure that it was difficult for him to utter the remarks that he has just made. It was his party and his then party leader that were dishonest. There is a need for the electorate to be given clearly the views of politicians before an election and for the politicians to stand up for the issues on which they have been voted into office.

If the Secretary of State were to gain support through a referendum, he would be able to come to the House in a strong position, able to argue that the people of Northern Ireland were behind him. Without that support through a referendum, it would be better that he did not proceed. If he has the referendum, he will know.

I have listened with great interest to the debate over the last two days. It seems more like two hours, because of the ability of hon. Members to put forward their views. If it had not been for the harshness of the Government Whips, it might have been possible to investigate matters in the detail that they deserve rather than skating so lightly over the surface. In a few hours we shall debate clause stand part, and be able to re-examine in considerable detail the matters that have been touched upon.

My hon. Friend will be aware that I am not as experienced in these matters as he is, as I have not had an opportunity to speak on as many of the amendments as he has, because of the quick closure of the debates. He will appreciate that I should like to put a few views to the Committee before we put the Bill on the statute book—if we ever do. We are worried about the serious defects in the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 have one benefit that commends them to me, although I am against the general principle of referendums. The amendments lay before us the simple majority system. No democrat can object to that. The proposal is simple and straightforward and it works. However, I am rather concerned about where we should get if it did come into operation, because if the Secretary of State were to use a referendum to judge how widespread the support was, he would run into the difficulty, touched upon earlier, of knowing whether that support existed only in one section of the community, or right across all sections.

295
Cross-community support is the key, regardless of whether it is 50 per cent. plus one or 70 per cent. If it is not cross-community support but cross-party support, or a mixture of community and party support, there can be no devolution of any significance. How will the Secretary of State make the subjective judgment that he will have to make of anything that is put forward? He has to know what colour these votes are. There is such a myriad of political colours in Northern Ireland, one wonders whether it would be possible to print ballot papers in different colours. The voter could select the ballot paper according to his political or religious affiliations.

If the Secretary of State were to follow that procedure, which seems simple, there is no doubt that some people would cheat. One could not use that procedure unless the individual had absolute proof of identity. That would mean that the Government would have to accept—

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I am listening intently to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He is making important points, and I hope that the right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench are listening carefully.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, knowing how much care and thought I have put into my remarks, the Ministers are listening with great care to my point of view.

If one were to adopt my general principle for identification at the polling station, we should find it necessary to introduce a system that we have long sought for security, with every individual in Northern Ireland having an identity card. Moreover, it should be an identity card that not only states a person's name and has a photograph and perhaps a thumb print, but also states a person's religious and political affiliations. That would obviate the difficulty caused by impersonation which is supposed to be widespread in Northern Ireland, although I have never found it to be so. I think that it is grossly over-estimated.

If the Government were prepared to consider my suggestion, every elector could be positively identified along with his political affiliation. They could not get a ballot paper of the wrong colour and whenever the ballot was counted the Secretary of State would have an accurate count of opinion.

The hon. Gentleman's idea should be treated seriously. The political system in America is so structured that there is an official registration of electors which states what political party persons belong to. When electors in certain States vote on an issue that is not concerned with the election of a person for a political office—for example, alcohol consumption or Sunday trading—the presiding officers and the State know how many republicans voted in favour of a certain issue and how many democrats. Therefore, what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting for Northern Ireland is in being as a model in some states in America.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point and giving my idea an impeccable foundation. After all, we are talking about the greatest
296
democratic State in the world. If he were present, my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) might have disagreed with me on that. However, the United States of America is a democratic country and I should have thought that any scheme that it was prepared to adopt would be worthy of consideration in Britain.

I was in New Zealand during the last general election in November 1981 and I noticed that it had a slightly different way from us of conducting elections. Garages, private houses and so on were used as polling stations. That would not be acceptable in the United Kingdom.

There are many and varied possibilities. There is no doubt that the Secretary of State should put his officials to work to consider some of them.

If the hon. Gentleman is seriously arguing for identity cards in Northern Ireland, would he go so far as to say that all persons in the United Kingdom should have such identity cards? Or is he suggesting that it should apply only to those in Northern Ireland?

That raises the important question as to whether we should distinguish between citizens in one part of the United Kingdom and another. Given the number of people across the Irish Sea and the number of people who visit England from Ireland, not all of whom come with good and peaceable intentions, it would be wise to consider extending such a scheme to the United Kingdom. It was necessary in the antiterrorist legislation in the past and it has proven necessary to keep such legislation up to the present. If the scheme could be made available to the security and police forces throughout the United Kingdom, one could look upon it with great favour.

In those circumstances, I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the scheme and put it to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for consideration in relation to Britain. There are other democratic States, such as France, in which it is necessary to carry an identity card. If such things are necessary to protect life and property and to identify people at the poll—sour most important asset—there is no reason why we should not give careful consideration to the whole subject.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will develop his point about parity of treatment in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. What would be the ramifications if the British people were encouraged, by referendum, to decide whether the troops should stay in Northern Ireland?

When they fully understand the issue, the people of Great Britain always make a sensible decision. The arguments that apply to the "troops out" question are not fully explained, so we might need some good public education. There should be more explanation of that issue than there was when we entered the Common Market. Those who said that we should stay out of the EEC were eventually proved right.

Is not the hon. Gentleman's proposition alien to the British voting system? If, as I believe, Northern Ireland is very much a part of the United Kingdom, should not the voting systems in Northern Ireland be precisely the same as those in the remainder of the United Kingdom? Is not one of the most sacred features of our voting system that votes are cast privately and confidentially? Therefore, is not his proposition alien and will he not reconsider it? I am sure that he shares my
297
view that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. We want it to remain part of the United Kingdom, but the hon. Gentleman's proposal will not help towards that end.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point that the secrecy of the ballot must be maintained and that the same procedures should prevail throughout the United Kingdom. However, the same standards and systems do not prevail. After all, all hon. Members in the United Kingdom are elected by the simple majority system. However, that is not true of all elections in Northern Ireland. We have to contend with the single transferable vote and with so-called proportional representation. That matter has been ignored in our debates so far, but we should give it serious consideration. The system in Northern Ireland can have a result different from that which would otherwise prevail if the simple majority system were used.

The idea of using identity cards at polling stations has been thrown out for discussion to help the Secretary of State to decide whether the poll that he might hold has the widespread support in the community that he evidently desires. He must discover what the vote is, before making up his mind one way or the other. A secret ballot would be a great help if there was some way of identifying the proportions of the parties that voted for the proposals.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the identity card would be a much more sensible means of identification than the showing of, for example, a rent book, because many people in Northern Ireland are not terribly keen on paying their rent and would be only too happy to hand over their rent books?

There is perhaps some levity in the hon. Gentleman's comment, but unfortunately it is true. The difficulty in some parts of Northern Ireland is not so much the rent book as the rent. Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office know about those difficulties.

I have had some difficulty with amendment No. 26. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), but I noticed that his amendment talks about a "poll or polls". It would appear that the hon. Member for Antrim, North is thinking of moving towards the Swiss system of a torrent of polls to try to determine the opinion of the people on many different issues. That is a fascinating idea in the British Parliamentary context and we must consider it carefully. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has not expanded sufficiently on the possibilities of his amendment and the matter is so wide that we must hear from him again.

I can understand one poll for a specific purpose, but now we have been told that there could be a poll or polls, so it is clear that the hon. Member for Antrim, North is thinking of the need for more than one. Therefore, perhaps he will agree with those who said earlier that only one function at a time should be devolved and that we can have a poll on each. That would be fairly costly and the public purse might suffer, but he is leaving the door open for that and we should applaud his vision. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have performed a valuable service for which they should be commended, because it is a serious proposal.

New clause 11 is very interesting and I have listened to hon. Members' remarks. However, a few points have
298
not yet been raised and perhaps the movers of the new clause can set my mind at rest as to the proposals. We meet again in subsection 2 the words
If it appears to the Secretary of State that less than 40 per cent.
The word "appears" has many connotations that worry me. It is not an objective, hard and fast judgment but a subjective judgment that must be added to all the questions that were raised on the amendments put down to the Scotland and Wales Acts about how accurate the register was, how many had died or moved away, how long the register had been in print and the exact number of electors in the community.

I do not believe that those matters were ever satisfactorily concluded. Certainly they all need to be considered again. How is an accurate 40 per cent. to be arrived at if there is difficulty in settling the precise number of electors? How do we find out what 100 per cent. is? How many mistakes are there on the register? How many people are on twice and how many not at all? There is a monthly updating of the register, so when is the 100 per cent. figure for the electorate in the Province to be decided?

It is a serious problem because I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members recall that when the vote was taken in Scotland there was a vote in favour of the Scotland Act 1978 but it failed on the 40 per cent. rule.

There was a slim majority in favour in Scotland. It was about 31 per cent. against 30 per cent. The majority of Scottish Members were in favour of devolution. The hon. Member may wish to consider that, because the majority of Scottish Members and the Scottish electorate were in favour of the Scotland Act.[Interruption.] It was the Scotland Act at the time of the referendum. I wish that a few more of my English hon. Friends would pay more attention.

One of the problems that the hon. Gentleman and I share is that so many hon. Members are naturally interested primarily in English matters that they rarely understand in great depth the problems of Scotland, Ireland or Wales. We face the difficulty of making them understand the problems. It is important to note that the majority of Scottish Members were in favour of the Scotland Act 1978 and the majority of Scottish electors who voted were in favour. It failed because it did not achieve the required 40 per cent.

The Committee will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who ha .s confirmed my view. I am sure that he will confirm that a small mistake in arriving at an accurate total of the electorate could have produced a different result in Scotland with regard to the percentage of votes cast. If the figure had been lower, the 40 per cent. would have been achieved. We have no way of knowing how accurate the figures on the register are. Whenever there is an election every Northern Ireland Member—I am sure it happens elsewhere in the United Kingdom—is approached by a number of electors either on election day or afterwards who say, "I do not have a vote. Where is my vote? I have been here for 10, 20 or 30 years. I have always been on the electoral register, but I went to cast my vote and suddenly my name is not there." That is a serious matter and we cannot allow it to rest without a full explanation—

The hon. Gentleman is talking about people entitled to vote, and those are the electors on the electoral register. It is just too bad if persons are not on the register. They are not included in the 40 per cent.

But what does "entitled" mean? I am not a lawyer, but the law of this country provides that, in general, a person over 18 is entitled to vote. The final entitlement is that he or she is on the register, but what sort of entitlement is included in the amendments? What about those who are ill on the day? A host of problems remain unresolved after the intervention of the hon. Member for Antrim, North.

It is rivetingly interesting that, in the first of today's four Divisions on amendments, only 40 per cent. of hon. Members who were entitled to vote actually did so. In the second Division a mere 28.7 per cent. voted and on the other two Divisions 37 per cent. and 36 per cent. of hon. Members voted.

If we examine the numbers voting against the amendments, we see that there has not been a majority of as much as 37 per cent. Does the hon. Gentleman draw any conclusions from that in relation to the matters that he is discussing?

I have always found electoral matters riveting. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting intervention. It demonstrates the powers of the Whips. The Secretary of State is prepared to force the Bill through in the absence of many of his right hon. and hon. Friends and without asking whether he has cross-community or cross-party support. Evidently he does not even have the total support of his own party. The right hon. Gentleman and the Government are not prepared to accept for themselves the principles that they are laying down for Northern Ireland.

I cut my political teeth on electoral matters. Before we appointed electoral officers in Northern Ireland to look after these matters—inefficiently as they do so—the political parties had the responsibility of seeing that their supporters were on the electoral registers and that the dead, whom we are told rise and vote, were not on the registers. I did that over a large rural area, part of it densely populated and part of it sparsely populated. It was a most interesting experience. I had to inquire who had left and who was there, and check on their ages. We used to collect the odd pound for the Unionist Party as well. All politicians know how necessary it is to get the odd fiver, as I suppose it is now, to keep the ship of the party afloat. I was about to say the ship of State, but perhaps that would not be fitting.

11.15 pm

New clause 11 raises some important issues. Not only do I have an interest in electoral registers—indeed, who in Ulster has not?—but I have long, detailed experience of the checking of registers and of lists which are issued so that the population may ensure that the register is correct. I have also taken part in elections as a personation agent—something which is rarely done in Great Britain.

I have taken a great interest in electoral registration courts. No doubt legislation provides for such courts here, but I understand that the detail is not carried out as assiduously as in Ulster, where we object to the inclusion of those who are not entitled to be on the register. We go to the courts which are held specially for the purpose and
300
which are chaired by the local deputy electoral officer. A person's name may be taken off or put on the register, depending on proof of entitlement to vote. It was on that basis that I was putting the question earlier about the meaning of entitlement in regard to this new clause.

In new clause 12 the word "appears" occurs again. In those circumstances many of the same questions could be asked about that new clause as about new clause 11.

Amendment No. 65 is a proposed new schedule put forward by some members of the Conservative Party. Paragraph 1 refers to a referendum to be held
not less than six weeks after the making of the Order, as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint.
It is not clear to me precisely what sort of an order this is. Those who are more experienced in these matters or the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have tabled the new schedule may be able to tell us whether it will be possible to pray against the order or to debate it. If so, what will be the effect?

There is also the problem of electors who may vote in a parliamentary constituency in Northern Ireland. What about Irish citizens? What about Irish peers, who have the right perhaps to vote for Members coming here, or even to sit in the House? All these matters need to be gone into in great depth. So far, we have only skated over them.

I referred just now to Irish citizens. I do not know how many live in Northern Ireland and are entitled to vote in parliamentary elections, but I suspect there are quite a number, and there is the possibility of those people, not even being United Kingdom citizens, any more than is the noble Lord Gowrie who is in the Northern Ireland Office, all having the right to vote. If we accepted the new schedule, in my view it would have to be amended to remove from Irish citizens the right to vote on this constitutional issue. Of course, I should be prepared to remove it from the Irish citizens in any case. Anyone who votes in this country should be a citizen of this country. I do not see why we should give to Irish citizens the right to vote on any matter which can affect the composition of this place. We heard complaints about Northern Ireland Members sitting and voting here when the Stormont Parliament was in operation. Surely, it is far worse when citizens of a foreign country have the right to affect what is going on in the House of Commons and in the United Kingdom.

In paragraph 5 of the new schedule we see a reference to the cost of a referendum and how it is to be met. We read:
An Order in Council …shall not charge any sum on the Consolidated Fund.
Again, we have to ask whether the Order in Council is debatable. Reference is also made to the Order in Council in paragraph 4. All these matters probably would have to be debated in great detail before we got round to holding a referendum, and we should need to take on board all these problems and give them much deeper consideration than they have had so far.

I have not yet mentioned the form of the ballot paper. My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South spoke of the view of the Assembly being ignored, to say nothing of the views of Members of Parliament. We also need to be told how we are to arrive at the question which is to appear on the ballot paper. How is the wording to be decided? There is so much that could be said about opinion polls. There is even more to be said about the character of the Irishman who, we are told, is always willing to tell
301
folk what he thinks they want to hear. This is a vast subject. I hope that I shall be able to catch your eye, Mr. Weatherill, in order to speak on it again.

There are many arguments against referendums. Some people say that they are too expensive. It is never an easy time to spend money if the expenditure can be avoided. Some people say that we in the House are elected to decide the matters that come before us and that there is no need to keep running to ask our electors for their opinions on this or that subject. It is felt that if we once started down the path of referendums, we could deteriorate into a sort of maxi-Switzerland with all sorts of referendums on all sorts of different subjects.

It is said that the British people do not like referendums and would not vote in them. It is said that they like to elect their Parliament once at a general election and that that should be the end of the matter. I would go along with all of those points, but the pass has already been sold. If it is true that we can ignore all these arguments in a referendum about the EEC, or about Scotland or Wales, I cannot see how there can possibly be a determination by Ministers to block a referendum on this subject.

I am sure that my hon. Friend has observed during our debates on the Bill that many members of the Official Unionist Party have rested their case on an integrationist argument. That argument, as I have understood it, is based on the overwhelming power of the parliamentary system at Westminster. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would consider just how much damage the introduction of referendums might do to the strength of parliamentary government and therefore to the arguments of members of the Official Unionist Party.

Yes. I take my hon. Friend's point. As I have shown in the few comments that I have already made, I am not necessarily a supporter of referendums. My point is that the time for saying to the people of Britain that referendums are not to be permitted has gone. The whole argument has been swept away. I am not so much a reluctant convert to referendums as a student of history and a lover of logic. I simply do not understand what argument there can possibly be against asking the people of Northern Ireland if they want the monstrosity that the House is preparing to wish upon them.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to Ulster as a wanted member of the United Kingdom. I took down those words as he said then. That is a warm phrase unless one thinks of it in a criminal context. I am anxious that Ulster should feel a genuinely wanted part of the United Kingdom. I share my right hon. Friend's view on that, but how can Ulster consider itself wanted when so many conditions are forced on Northern Ireland which do not apply elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

The Bill proposes that there should be a different system of election and that there should be no chance for any of the citizens of Northern Ireland to say whether they want that different system of election. I am an opponent of proportional representation. I believe that it throws up weak Government. I could speak at great length on the dangers of changing the system.

I shall finish my sentence and then I shall gladly give way to my hon. Friend. If there is to be a
302
different system of election from that in he rest of the United Kingdom—I know that there has been proportional representation in Northern Ireland—the people of the Province should at least have the chance to say whether they want it or whether they do not.

I wonder how we, who have the honour to be Members of the House of Commons, would feel if different systems were forced upon us against our will, without our having the right to say whether we wanted them.

I wish to deal with other differences, because we are not discussing PR alone. I refer to the yardstick which determines whether a measure should or should not be approved. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) has already drawn to the attention of a fascinated Committee the voting that we have experienced tonight. If the 70 per cent. majority rule had applied tonight, none of the Bill would have been approved. If the figure were 40 per cent., the same would have applied.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. It has crossed my mind that the pairing arrangements for this evening must be interesting. We have watched with admiration the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley)—the Laurel and Hardy of the Opposition Front Bench—nobly taking the burden. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was so moved by the sight of the empty Opposition Benches that he put more beef into the Back Benches, and moved over to sit there.

The 70 per cent. proposition must be put before the people. I remind the Committee that on one famous occasion in this House, one was enough. One vote led to the last general election. What a night that was! How different it will be in Northern Ireland with no such arrangements allowed and no views sought in the Province.

I confess that one of my many failings is that I am not a mathematician. I have no doubt that what the hon. Gentleman says is true. How can Ulster consider itself to be wanted, needed and loved if a totally different set of rules is imposed and no one there is allowed to judge?

My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Devolved government is not democratic government. By democratic government I mean
government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State means government of 30 per cent. of the people, by 70 per cent. of the people, and for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

I have cause again to congratulate my hon. Friend on the pithiness and accuracy of his remarks.

We in this House should not forget that on the day of the Second Reading of the Bill, The Daily Telegrapha— a newspaper that is not normally reckoned to be against the Government; indeed, it normally supports the Government—contained an opinion column which could hardly be more damning of any Government Bill. Perhaps I might read one or two brief excerpts from it. It said:
the Bill, bitterly unpopular with nearly all politicians in both parts of Ireland, will also face determined opposition from a substantial number of Conservative backbenchers
That is perfectly true. I say again to my right hon. Friend that we are not here out of mischief or malice. We are here fighting against the Bill because we all believe that it is wrong for Northern Ireland. We feel that very keenly. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, who is a fair-minded man, will recognise the motives behind our fight.

The other comment that I wanted to read was:
The most probable outcome of this irresponsible adventure is an impotent assembly bitterly divided and manifesting all the rage associated with impotence. There is something almost insulting about the inadequacy and mutual incompatibility of the arguments used to defend the measure".
That is what The Daily Telelgraph felt should be said about this Bill.

I come back to this crucial group of amendments. I do not understand how my right hon. Friend could say—it may have been the other Minister—in an earlier debate that it would be contentious if the local authority in Northern Ireland were given more power. He thinks it would be contentious if the local authority had more power, yet it would not be contentious if this Bill went through. If that is true, let us test it by a referendum. It is an easy thing to do, and that is what this series of amendments seeks to do.

The name of Stormont came up earlier in this debate. Of course, we are not debating Stormont. It has gone, and we cannot turn back the clock. I wish that we could. Two of the major mistakes made by this House over Ulster were, first, getting rid of Stormont, and second, getting rid of the B Specials. Those two enormous mistakes are difficult to set right. It is not possible to talk about Stormont being reconstituted because, certainly in the period of my knowledge, it did not have PR, although the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) pointed out that it started out with PR. Proportional representation was withdrawn, and the ordinary system of voting was introduced into Stormont, because of the character of the problem in Northern Ireland. It was clearly recognised that that system was not right for Stormont, and it was withdrawn, yet here we are going down the same road again.

It was most unfortunate yesterday that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) should have sought to imply that no one who had not lived in Ulster or visited Ulster frequently should speak in this debate. I have a deep affection for Ulster, and I have a right to express that affection. I shall go down fighting for
304
the right of Ulster to say what Ulster wants on this Bill. Cannot my right hon. Friend recognise that this is not a wildcat demand, that it is not a determination to hold up the passage of the Bill? This is a moderate and reasonable demand. If we really want the people of Northern Ireland to feel that they are part of us, we can do no less than grant them this demand.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) made an elegant and persuasive speech, demonstrating that we are discussing a major constitutional principle and illustrating the great skill and selectivity that we show in applying this principle when it suits us and ignoring it when it does not. She said that we had always sold the pass, as indeed we have. There are many examples in legislation of the introduction of referendums, and I have heard not one convincing argument against doing so in the Bill. Nevertheless, it is clear that we shall find any pretext—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State produced some fairly thin ones—for not using the referendum technique if it happens not to suit us at a particular time.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. He said that he had heard no convincing argument for rejecting the referendum route. Perhaps he will consider one argument that is adduced in favour of referendums—that if a simple question is put to the electorate, it will finish the argument once and for all. I suggest, particularly in the presence of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), that the referendum on the Common Market did not finish the argument once and for all. Regrettably, in my view, as I support the Common Market, many hon. Members would argue that it did exactly the opposite. My hon. Friend might consider that that is one powerful argument at least which can be refuted by those who have doubts about the use of referendums.

That point can be taken both ways. I do not believe that any vote can settle a matter that represents permanent divisions within the electorate. Thus, the Common Market issue could not be settled by the use of a referendum. Without that referendum, however, our continued presence within the Community would have been very difficult for the Government to sustain. The wholehearted consent of the people, in the phrase used at that time, at least gained us a veneer of respectability. To that extent, a referendum helps for a while.

I was worried somewhat by the speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). He gave a riveting account of how he cut his political teeth, but at the end of his dissertation on electoral dentistry, which lasted well over half an hour, it was still not clear to me whether he was for or against the use of referendums. He suggested that if we had referendums it might be necessary also to have identity cards. That is about the most powerful argument against referendums that I have heard. If it meant that identity cards would be necessary throughout the United Kingdom, many of us would vote against the proposal on that ground. I believe that the British people would resent it. Indeed, there would probably have to be a referendum on whether identity cards should be introduced, and no doubt the proposal would be voted down.

The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made a significant point. I do not wish to misquote him.
305
I think that he argued, in effect, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was prepared to see the ballot box used to vote for personalities but not for issues. That summarises the whole argument about the use of referendums. It was odd, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State then found great comfort in an opinion poll that seemed to support him on the particular issue. If my right hon. Friend places such value on that poll, which seemed to support him, surely that suggests that he, too, would like to have reassurance on the introduction of this proposed legislation. It was clear that he found great comfort from the poll. He said that polls had great advantages. One great advantage is that we can ignore those that we do not like and select those that we do like.

I do not think that my right hon. Friend was at his most convincing when, having quoted the result of the opinion poll and suggested that a majority of the electorate was in favour of the proposition that he has put forward, he added that he was in favour not of single issue politics but of representative Government, and that he preferred the views of elected politicians.

11.45 pm

Surely we are talking in this instance about politicians who have been elected to the Westminster Parliament. If we are to make any judgments on the prospects for this legislation being successful, we must consider the opposition of the elected politicians of the Province. That being so, I suggest that those who support the Bill should be pessimistic about its chances of contributing anything to Northern Ireland.

I voted in favour of the Bill's Second Reading. I have supported the Government since then. However, the more that I have listened to the debates, the harder I find it to justify my support. The longer that I stay in the Chamber, the more I regret what I did. However, if we can insert a referendum clause, at least we shall be able to say "Bad though this legislation might be, at least the people of Ulster will have the opportunity to endorse or reject it."

My right hon. Friend should not discard this proposition lightly. If he is right in thinking that the measure has the support of the electorate, surely he will be strengthened in his resolve and it will have a greater chance of success if he puts it to the electorate as a specific issue. I am puzzled because my right hon. Friend has not used the technique as a means of endorsing his proposals. It would have saved him a great deal of heartache, hardship and late nights in Committee. He could have referred throughout to the long—stopthe facility of the electorate to make the final judgment.

I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider his position. I ask him especially to reconsider his arguments, which were not totally convincing. My right hon. Friend argued that there is a great difference between Northern Ireland and Scotland and Wales. His main argument seemed to be that in Northern Ireland we must establish that both communities will support or reject the proposition and that that cannot be done in a referendum. If so, he is demolishing the argument for a border poll. If there is a normal vote on a border poll, it will be impossible to distinguish authentically between the way that the communities vote. I do not think that my right hon. Friend is devaluing the border poll in suggesting that we should leave it entrenched in the constitution. If that is valid, I suggest that a referendum on this issue—

I put a question to my hon. Friend with much diffidence because of the presence on the Treasury Bench of my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. Amendment No. stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). If accepted, it will put to a referendum the proposals in clause 1. One par: of the proposals consists of the Assembly's standing orders. Does he feel that paragraph 38, which deals with the closure of debate. might be the subject of a referendum, especially on whether it is appropriate in a devolved Assembly for there to be any closure of debate? I wonder whether my hon. Friend would give me his opinion on whether he would support amendment No. 101, because he has addressed himself mainly to the new clauses.

I shall come to points regarding amendment No. 101. The closuring of the Irish is an impossible proposition. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip will discover, we might be able to secure it on a temporary basis, but in the long term it would not be a fruitful exercise. It concerns me greatly that not only do we often have to closure major constitutional debates but that hanging over the whole question is the shadow of the guillotine. That is much more worrying. I shall come to that point, because. it is relevant to the question of whether there is a referendum.

I think that I can assist my hon. Friend again. According to the standing orders of the Irish Assembly, it would be necessary for a closure to have 25 Members voting. In the closure that we have had today, a mere 26.5 per cent. voted for it. If we take the figures of those who would be in the Assembly under the Bill as it stands or as it might be if there were 85 Members, the necessity for 25 Members voting would mean that no form of closure would carry a sufficient percentage of those eligible to vote. Also, there are no standing orders in the Irish Assembly that provide for any guillotine.

Heaven help us if we introduce the principle of a quorum or such minimum figures into our legislation. If we had done so, certainly on a Friday, hardly one Bill would have been passed in the whole history of Parliament. Perhaps that would be a good thing. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do no go down that path too far.

I was trying to deal with the seond argument advanced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He said that if we had proposed a fully fledged devolution and a major transfer of powers now, as we did with Scotland and Wales, there would be a strong case for a referendum in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said something akin to that. We are proposing not anything of that sort at this time but an elected Assembly that would have the power to seek devolved powers at a later stage. They would come later as creeping devolution.

We are saying that the net result, in the long term, could be the same because the Assembly could acquire devolved powers. Admittedly, there would be subsequent parliamentary procedures. We could consider how effective they might be, but the net result would be the same devolved powers being held by the Northern. Ireland Assembly. My right hon. Friend is saying that, had we done that in one go, the people of Northern Ireland would have the right to decide but that, if we do it by creeping devolution, they will be denied that right to decide.

307
If we are arguing about anything and if opposition to the Bill means anything, it is because we believe that ultimately power will be transferred and that the Bill is the beginning of real devolution in the sense of the devolution of Scotland and Wales, which we discussed. If we believed that a referendum was justified then, I cannot see how we can argue that it is not justified now.

My right hon. Friend advanced another argument. He said that we might ask the electorate, under amendment No. 101, to vote upon a package of powers to be devolved. The Assembly of elected Members may be opposed to the package. I accept that this is the classic conflict in any referendum. It is a situation that could have arisen over Scottish and Welsh devolution or Common Market legislation. It is the dilemma that has to be resolved if referendums are ever used. The argument cannot be employed to demolish the use of a referendum in the situation now being discussed. It is always the way if, on the one hand, we wish to maintain the sovereignty of Parliament and, on the other, to use this electoral device occasionally to seek the views of the electorate on particular issues.

An element of coexistence has been produced. All hon. Members believe in the sovereignty of Parliament. Many of us have come to believe in the validity of an occasional referendum on single issues. It is because we can be pragmatic and not ideological that this element of coexistence is achieved.

The Northern Ireland issue is the classic instance for the use of a referendum. There are a number of special reasons. One is the relatively empty nature of the Chamber tonight. It has filled up a little. There are now two Labour Members present—double the number seen for much of the evening. Hon. Members will recall that when the issue of the 40 per cent. requirement was debated on the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill, the Chamber was packed. A tremendous sense of drama existed. It was a great constitutional issue.

Those proposals had been discussed for months. There had been long periods of consultation. The Bill now before the Committee has not received such consideration. When there has been inadequate consultation and debate on a Bill at this stage of a parliamentary Session—I find the timing strange—there is an even stronger case for consulting the electorate.

We have no written constitution. Our checks and balances are very much influenced by the power of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, by the party system and by the whipping system that all hon. Members support, understand and value. Within that system, there is a need sometimes for checks and controls on major constitutional issues. Much legislation can be changed and reversed without people being much the poorer. Even the Government can be changed. However, a major change in the constitution requires tremendous care and caution.

With a written constitution, such a change could not be effected. If the change was contrary to the written constitution in a nation that believed in the rule of law, it would have to go to the Supreme Court. A matter could not be passed unless it was approved by an overwhelming majority in both Houses. That is not the case here. When a Bill is introduced in this manner and at this time, the need arises for the check and balance of the referendum. The electorate acts as the long stop. It can prevent violent
308
and radical change. It can prevent Parliament abusing its power and its sovereignty through passing too quickly, helped by excessive use of the whipping system, a major and radical change through both Houses.

This is, in principle, the sort of issue on which there should be a willingness to use the referendum. If my right hon. Friend was prepared to consider this approach, and perhaps introduce it in the other place, he would find his own position and the prospects for this legislation working strengthened.

That might be regarded as arguing against myself because I am increasingly beginning to believe that the legislation is a mistake. It is either an exercise in futility, because the Assembly will remain a talking shop that will provide another platform for yet more talk, or it will move towards the taking over of devolved powers granted by the House. That will cause immense damage to the unity of the United Kingdom. It will be a precedent that will be seized by those who wish to give similar powers to Scotland and Wales. Whichever of those propositions turns out to be correct, the people of Northern Ireland ought to have the right to say whether they want to take that risk. Even if it goes wrong, if the people have backed it in a referendum, there will be much less odium heaped on the heads of those who introduced the legislation.

12 midnight

This is an important proposal. It should be passed. I can see defects, particularly in amendment No. 101. The right hon. Member for Down, South was right in his criticism of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). It would be difficult to put a package of proposals to the voters and then to put it to Parliament and ask Parliament to vote for or against it. Parliament would not wish to be presented with what has been described as a predetermined package by our electoral masters.

I should still vote for the amendment in the hope that it could be altered, that we could then suggest that it be passed by the House, but that it should not come into effect until it had been supported by 40 per cent. of those entitled to vote. That is a strong case.

We should vote for the amendments—they might need tidying up and changing—and perhaps the new clauses. Above all, we should incorporate the principle of the referendum in the Bill because, as a number of hon. Members have said, this is an issue on which we should let the people decide.

We have had a further considerable debate on this subject, and I shall deal with a number of the points that have been raised.

The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), discussed amendment No. 26, which he tabled. He said that it appeared that we were not prepared to consider or accept amendments moved by anyone, regardless of whether they appeared to be reasonable or not, and that we spent our time knocking down amendments. That is not the case. So far we have not found amendments that we think are particularly appropriate, but if amendments come up, and if there are other matters in the Bill that I think can be improved, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall have an open mind.

Some weeks ago the hon. Member for Belfast, East came with a deputation to see me on a particular matter.
309
We are raking into account some of the points he raised, and shall be putting down amendments that I hope will be helpful to him.

In the case of referendums—this applies to the other amendments—my strong advice to the Committee is not to accept any of the amendments. I say this because I believe that Northern Ireland, both in its history and in its geography, as in its political traditions, is different from the other parts of the United Kingdom and raises, in respect of referendums, different considerations from those that would normally be raised.

In particular, because of the arrangement that we have made for this legislation whereby any question of a transfer of powers has to come back to this House for its decision, it is far best left, first, to the Assembly and then to this House to make the decision. It is for that reason that I am asking the Committee to reject these amendments.

To take the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), it is not necessarily that I am against referendums or the selection of a single issue. In recent years, that has had a fair degree of success. However, in this particular case it is not a straight matter of "Yes" or "No". The transfer of power is a delicate and difficult matter. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, it would be difficult for most of the people to make an adequate decision without being asked a whole range of questions that I think would be inappropriate to a referendum.

I will give way when I have completed my reply to my hon. Friend's speech.

My hon. Friend went on to talk about the Border poll. He said that if I did not think that referendums had a part to play, there was no need for a Border poll. We have provision for a Border poll as part of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act and that remains. However, when people vote on the Border poll in Northern Ireland they tend to vote along the lines of their religious or constitutional views. I am not saying that they should not, but the way they vote is pre-ordained. That has emerged in the referendums that we have had and I think that it would do so again in referendums on virtually any subject. I do not believe—

I do not mean to be disrespectful, but my right hon. Friend's argument is completely pragmatic it order to obtain a pre-determined result. Many hon. Members fear that in the process of his pragmatism he is selling principle down the road.

It would be quite wrong for us to believe that this issue in relation to Northern Ireland is in any way connected with the Scotland. or Wales Acts. It is a completely different situation and in this scheme there is a large—

I grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. It is quite absurd for him to tell the Committee that there is no parallel between Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Of course there is a parallel. What he is really saying is that the democratic wish of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland should not prevail and that the minority should have a veto. That is the core of the proposal that he is putting to us. I do not say that that is wrong, but let us be clear that the idea that the minority should prevail is at the front of his mind.

That is absolute nonsense and my right hon. Friend knows it. We are setting up an Assembly. There will be an election. to the Assembly. That is the first and most important factor. In that way the democratic wish of the people will be expressed by those whom they vote for in an Assembly. It will then be for the Assembly to put proposals to the Secretary of State, as laid down in clause 1(4)(a) and (b), for the consideration of the House. That is perfectly democratic and correct.

How can the Secretary of State stand at the Dispatch Bo K saying that people voted in the Border poll according to their religious convictions? Only 6,000 people voted against. Is he saying that there are only 6,000 Roman Catholics or republicans in Northern Ireland?

My hon. Friends the Members:for Faversham and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) were not in the Chamber during an important debate covering all the principles in the Bill. Like everything else in the Northern Ireland context, the Bill has its difficulties. It is not hard to put obstacles in the way of any political initiative in Northern Ireland. However, we should all know that the position in Northern Ireland is unsatisfactory for the people, for employment, for the level of industrial investment and for the level of political responsibility.

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. As the Secretary of State is clearly coming towards the end of his
311
speech, may I point out that he has made many controversial points and that there are many points that we may wish to raise. I make that point in case you have any doubts about how to proceed after the Secretary of State's speech.

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I see the Patronage Secretary sitting in the Chamber and in previous debates his coming has usually presaged the moving of the closure. I respectfully suggest that you should not allow the closure at this stage. The Secretary of State reminded the Committee a moment ago about the excellent debate upon the fundamentals of clause 1. About 10 of my right hon. and hon. Friends—I see that you disagree with me, Mr. Weatherill. I am certainly one of three or four Members who have sat in this Committee for five or six hours in the hope—

This is an important issue and about 10 right hon. and hon. Members still wish to speak. I urge you, Mr. Weatherill, not to allow the closure motion which the Patronage Secretary is about to put before you.

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. What is the position of the Committee if you say that a hypothetical position might arise and while we may be considering it the Patronage Secretary might move the closure? Then it is too late for anyone to object. How can the rights of hon. Members be protected if we are to fall between a hypothetical position and the rising of the Patronage Secretary? On no fewer than six occasions, as I have been about to rise in the hope of catching the eye of the Chair, the Patronage Secretary has drifted in like Jaws himself, and walked slowly to his seat and at an appropriate moment a sort of feeling passes between the Secretary of State or the Minister and the Patronage Secretary, who quickly rises to the Dispatch Box and it is finished.

I have been waiting for 16 hours to make a speech. My speech is anxiously awaited by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because only yesterday morning at three o'clock—time is meaningless in this debate—I said to my right hon. Friend that I would forbear to make a speech if he accepted—

Order. I shall deal with this point of order first. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me how he should behave and the answer to that, of course, is well. Secondly, if the Chief Whip seeks the closure, it is not I but the House that decides it.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. There is a serious constitutional problem here. Once the Patronage Secretary rises and moves the motion and you accept it, we can say nothing further. However, as you would rightly say, Mr. Weatherill, you are the servant of the Committee and you would wish to know the view of the Committee before you make a decision. The only way in which you can know the view of the Committee is to allow points of order. There are sometimes occasions when hon. Members rise and wish to speak, perhaps feeling that they can air the same views at a later stage. There are other occasions—I give the example of earlier today when we were discussing that important amendment—when many hon. Gentlemen feel that once excluded they have lost the chance to express their views.

Might I respectfully suggest, Mr. Weatherill, that you allow a generous system by which somebody on the Government side says when they are proposing to offer a closure and you allow the House to express its views? Otherwise, there is a rather disagreeable feeling among some of us that we are being bounced, not by the Chair but by the Patronage Secretary. We do not like that. It makes us feel unhappy and sometimes even awkward.

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I should like your guidance. We have listened for a long time to many speeches. We are now having one from the Secretary of State that raises new and highly contentious points. How can we avoid being gagged if at some early moment after the Secretary of State sits down, the closure motion is put? Is there any procedure open to us to avoid being gagged?

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Was it not your impression that the Secretary of State was making the type of speech one would expect in a debate on clause stand part? If the Secretary of State inadvertently slipped into that role, would it not resolve the problem if he were to confine himself to dealing with the amendments that have been moved instead of matters that have not been raised.

Thank you, Mr. Weatherill. Following remarks made by the Secretary of State and other Ministers—that he would not permit interventions and said that he hoped that his speech would end the debate—I have been prompted to want to catch the eye of the Chair. I was prevented from doing that, quite reasonably, by the fact that the Patronage Secretary wanted to move a closure. That is understandable, but within the last 10 minutes the Secretary of State has raised new issues. He is not summing up the debate in his second intervention. He has raised new material which has prompted me to want to catch your eye when he sits down. I wonder whether—

I am sorry if anyone feels that he has been gagged. That has not been my impression. As for introducing new elements in a speech at this time of the night, I assure my hon. Friends that after two nights I do
314
not have many new thoughts left and that what I am saying was said on earlier debates or in my previous intervention in this debate. Nothing that I am likely to say should, in normal circumstances, produce such a reaction from my hon. Friends.

I was trying to say to my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham and Edgbaston, who were not here this afternoon—I make no complaint about that—s that we are seeking to take a political initiative in extremely difficult circumstances. Anyone can say that it is the wrong initiative, but no constructive views have been put forward in all our debates, other than the point about local government which I dealt with at length this afternoon, and the view that integration is the only answer, which is a respectable view, but is not shared by any political party in Northern Ireland.

I am trying to produce a possibility of bringing about change in the political climate of Northern Ireland. I defy any hon. Member to say that we are wrong, as a party, a Government or a people, to put forward to our own people in Northern Ireland what we believe to be the right policy. That may not meet with the approval of all, but for me it is good enough to be a member of a Government who are seeking a political initiative in Northern Ireland.

§Amendment proposed: No. 26, in page 2, line 21, at end add—
'(6)Before laying before Parliament any proposals submitted to him under this section the Secretary of State may by order direct the holding of a poll or polls for the purpose of obtaining the views of the people of Northern Ireland on any matter contained in or arising out of such proposals or otherwise concerned with the future Government of Northern Ireland.'.—[Rev. Ian Paisley.]

§
THE CHAIRMAN, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matter arising thereon has been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the Amendment proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No.48 (debate on Clause or Schedule standing part). That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. It happened. Nothing in my remarks is critical of the Chair, but what you assured me was purely hypothetical. Quick as a flash, happened. My right hon. Friend was on his grande finale, in his purple passage, when all of a sudden, quick as a flash, the speed of the hand deceiving the eye, the Patronage Secretary was there. I lost my rights again. I have been sent here to represent the constituents of Burton. I know that the question of Northern Ireland in general, this Bill in particular and clause 1 in particular, is of great concern to them. I have waited for 17 hours to make a contribution to the debate—

My point of order is to seek the assistance of the Chair in protecting an hon. Member such as myself who is unable to respond—I am quite young and reasonably agile—with the speed that is necessary between the Chair ruling that a question is hypothetical and the Patronage Secretary leaping up and depriving me of my rights. I do not know what a member of this Committee can do. He cannot interrupt the Chair to argue about the hypothetical not, in fact, being hypothetical. He cannot raise a point of order when the Patronage Secretary, after prowling three of four times around the notice board, suddenly rushes to his seat and intervenes.

Hon. Members must feel themselves at a considerable disadvantage. I know that you, Mr. Weatherill, as the occupant of the Chair for this debate, must be extremely concerned. I had intended to suggest, if the opportunity presented itself, that a compromise solution and a reasonable suggestion would be to ask you to safeguard my rights by allowing a more wide-ranging debate on clause 1 stand part. But the Patronage Secretary was on his feet and it was finished—

My point of order is to ask how I will be protected. I ask you, Mr. Weatherill, not to think that this is any criticism of the Chair, but the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), much earlier in the proceedings, raised matters that the Chair had undertaken to consider in due course—that is to say, those matters that were not specifically chosen for amendment under clause 1 would be considered in due course. I had hoped that the course was when all this happening and the amendments were moved and that then, on clause stand part, there would be an opportunity for discussion to help you—

Nothing could be further from my mind. I make the point, to clarify it, that no other opportunity might present itself for me to exercise my rights as a democratically elected representative. Therefore, although I make no claims to being the sort of speaker that anybody in their normal mind would prefer among others, at the end of 16 hours of debate, with a contribution to make, I have, by the system, fairly and properly, been deprived of those rights.

I hesitate to say that I throw myself on the mercy of the Chair, because the Chair might respond as quickly as it has in the past, or the Patronage Secretary might get up and move something. I hope that the Chair will consider that I have a genuine grievance and, under the protection of the point of order, the Chair might give consideration to how that grievance might be removed so that hon. Gentlemen such as myself and my hon. Friends might be able to make a contribution where now we feel that we have been rendered impotent.

Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. and learned Gentleman and other hon. Gentlemen who are seeking to rise on a similar point. There are 25 amendments for debate on the provisional selection. If we
321
run out of those I shall gladly have a selection conference to produce more. The hon. and learned Gentleman will have plenty of opportunity on the next group of amendments.

On a further point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Could you give the Committee your guidance? Many of us had hoped that there would be a substantial debate on clause stand part. You may recollect that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) prepared the way for that in his discussion of the way in which the amendments had been grouped. All of us thought that if there had been any injustice at any stage during our discussion of clause 1, it would be remedied by our ability to contribute to the clause stand part debate.

There is a difficulty here. None of us wishes to put down a motion critical of the Chair, but it seems that we are in a difficult position—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".]. Of course we do not wish to do that. We wish to be fair to the Chair, and we wish also to have some guidance from the Chair.

As I understand the position, the Chair makes its decision whether there shall be debate on clause stand part. On the other hand, the Chair is the servant of the Committee and might wish to hear arguments as to whether there should be discussion on clause stand part. Our difficulty is that if we expect that there will be a discussion on clause stand part and the decision is made without any argument, we do not have an opportunity to influence the mind of the Chair. That could be unfair to the Chair because it might make a decision in error. We might have the sad position of a motion critical of the Chair being put down when, if the Chair had given an opportunity for discussion, nothing of that sort would have happened. Will you, Mr. Weatherill, give us some guidance?

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman goes too far along that line, I shall repeat—I do it for the benefit of the Committee—that every amendment that was in order on clause 1 was selected for debate. There was plenty of opportunity for hon. Members to speak. We have had two full days, a night, part of another night and well into this night for debate. That is all that I am prepared to say on that subject.

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I raised a point of order before the series of Divisions. I wanted to inquire about the situation in which I found myself. I was undecided in the previous debate, awaiting as I was the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) at the untimely point at which the debate ended. Had I been able to hear one or two other contributions, my vote, and possibly those of many of my hon. Friends, might have gone a different way. The result of a Division might be affected by the fact that sometimes hon. Members have had only
322
the opportunity of hearing a limited number of contributions in ore direction when we have been told by one or two of our hon. Friends, seeking to catch your eye, that they will be persuading us to cast our votes in another direction.

There are hon. Members, such as myself, who had genuinely not made up their minds which way to vote on the referendum question that was discussed earlier. I am sure hon. Members will testify to that.

Can you assist hon. Members such as myself, Mr. Weatherill, who are awaiting the contributions of spine of our hon. Friends to help us to decide which way to cast our vote, when the closure prevents us from hearing a speech?

I beg to move, That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again.

There are cogent reasons why this motion might now be thought acceptable. As you have observed, Mr. Weatherill, we have had an enormously wide-ranging and profound debate on clause 1. We have made great progress. We have got one-seventh of the way through the clauses or one-tenth of the way through the clauses and the schedules. There are only about 10 or 12 new clauses in addition, and it is by no means certain, Mr. Weatherill, that you will wish to select all of them.

We have gone a long way towards completing our task on the Bill. We have had, particularly in the last hour or so, what I think many hon. Members would agree has been a passionate discussion of the principles embodied in the Bill. In flights of impressive oratory, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State unloosed many interesting arguments. I think that many hon. Members will feel that he has worked extremely hard with his colleagues on the Front Bench. Because of my right hon. Friend's onerous administrative duties in Northern Ireland, he is entitled to a rest now. The progress that we have made and the duties of those on the Front Bench are strong enough reasons in themselves for reporting progress, but in addition the House must debate extremely important business tomorrow. Unlike the position today, the Opposition will no doubt be here in force tomorrow, because it is a Supply day. That will be extremely taxing on some of my other right hon. Friends, who will have to listen to the Opposition's arguments and to give impressive replies. However, no doubt they will do that.

Last night the House did not sit particularly late. We concluded our debates as early as 6 am. That is tolerable on a Tuesday, because it is the beginning of the week. However, towards the end of the week many of my right hon. and hon. Friends begin to feel the strain—[Interruption.] We also respect the tenacity of the Chair in listening to our debates and are mindful, Mr. Weatherill, of your position. However, all of us are bothered by the effect of such late sittings on the efficiency of our right hon. and hon. Friends in carrying out their duties without enough sleep.

As we approach 1.30 am, it is reasonable to report progress. After all, enormous progress has been made.

I support the motion because it is in the interests of all hon. Members. Yesterday we sat continuously for about 16 hours. Tonight we have been sitting continuously for about 11 hours. That must be bad for the Committee and for our powers of concentration, and damaging to the other business of Government.

Yesterday, in a similar context, I said that such late sittings must have some effect on the ability of Ministers to work properly in their offices. Tonight, the normal standard of decorum observed by members of the Parliamentary Conservative Party slipped—[Interruption.] The normally placid features of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) were distorted by rage only half an hour ago, when he shouted—rather like the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds)—across the Chamber, accusing another hon. Member of raising a bogus point of order. Such conduct is quite unbecoming for a Conservative Member and we are not used to it.

Even more importantly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said not 15 minutes ago that he had run out of thoughts. Obviously, that is the result of over-concentration on the same subject for too long. It is time to draw stumps, and to retire to the pavilion—[Interruption.]—to return refreshed another day. This is not a laughing matter. Standards in the Committee must be maintained and, most importantly, our minds must be capable of dealing with the serious problems before us. Therefore, I hope that the motion is accepted.

I, too, support the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst). It is unreasonable that the Committee should be sitting now on an important constitutional issue, having sat yesterday for about 16 hours. We are debating a critical matter for an important part of the United Kingdom and it is utterly wrong that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench should have to deal with important amendments that are argued in great detail by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, and must answer those arguments, when clearly they are not in an adequate state of mind or even body to do so. In this way we are handing more and more of the power and influence of the House of Commons to the civil servants who are briefing the Ministers. Ministers are perhaps following advice to which they have not given adequate thought.

In my experience of 11 years in the House, from time to time we have legislated in ignorance of the effect of that legislation. We are doing that tonight. We should bear in mind the rather unpleasant position that developed a few moments ago when many hon. Members tried to catch your eye, Mr. Weatherill, to make a contribution on the most fundamental of the clauses in the Bill, and you in your wisdom, which I do not question, deprived many of us of the opportunity to make a speech on clause stand part.

For the good behaviour and reputation of the House of Commons, it would be appropriate at 1.30 am for the Committee to report progress so that we can return to the legislation on another day and give it the attention and consideration that it merits.

I was a little concerned earlier about the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He was becoming extremely worked up. He is not known for that sort of temperament and it can only be because he put in so many
324
hours yesterday that he reacted so sharply to the reasonable points being made from the Conservative Benches. [Interruption.]

Many of my hon. Friends who question what I am saying were not in the Chamber when many of these important points were debated. Some of them may be on the payroll vote and they trot in for Divisions. I emphasise to my right hon. Friend, who has just been in conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), that this is a critical constitutional issue. I am sure that he agrees and that he does not wish to proceed further tonight. For the reputation of the House of Commons and the sense of the legislation, I hope that the Treasury Bench and you, Mr. Weatherill, as Chairman of the Committee, will accept this reasonable motion.

I support the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) and the remarks made by many of my colleagues so far. Some of my hon. Friends have rightly drawn attention to the rather unnatural approach of some Conservative Members. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I am privileged to be on the most charming terms with all my Conservative colleagues, but some of my colleagues, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester), are behaving most untypically and unnaturally.

If we continue the discussion into the early hours yet again, there will be actions taken and words said by hon. Friends to each other which will be regretted in the morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) is not here now. If there is anybody I hold in great esteem, apart from yourself, Mr. Weatherill, it is my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury. He has always brought a benign, clerical and respectable attitude to our proceedings, yet I clearly heard from him the most virulent abuse of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown). It is so untypical of him that I fear that if we continue others of my hon. Friends may make remarks—I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) muttering now-that they may regret in the morning when they appear in Hansard.

I have a more serious point that I wish to put before you Mr. Weatherill. The Secretary of State made some im—ortant and vital revelations on fundamental matters. To those of us who humbly try to follow the affairs of Northern Ireland to the best of our ability some of those matters were critical. I was hoping that we would have proceeded a little further with clause 1 by having a debate on clause 1 stand part. Although the debate has been all-embracing and voluminous many important points have not been properly and fully discussed.

The Secretary of State made several important new statements upon which our whole attitude in subsequent debates must hinge. I am sure that nine-tenths of my hon. Friends are not aware that the Secretary of State has established an inquiry in Northern Ireland. That information was released in reply to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs—Davison) who is probably as learned a student of Northern Ireland affairs as anybody. Even he was surprised at the revelation—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to persuade the House that it should adjourn. He seems to be encouraging the Secretary of State to say something more. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the motion.

The Secretary of State has said that an inquiry is in progress. He has provided little additional information and we do not know the extent of that inquiry, its guidelines, who laid down the guidelines, whether its findings will be approved by Parliament or whether the Secretary of State will get away with establishing a detailed inquiry without being responsible to Parliament. There should be a pause in the proceedings in the hope that the Secretary of State will publish the details in the Vote Office or make a statement when we resume relating to the inquiry.

The Secretary of State has made a number of significant contributions to our debates and given us much to think about. It would be right for the Committee to adjourn for a few days and for us to have a statement from my right hon. Friend, preferably in writing, before we meet again, so that we can have better debates next time and perhaps arrive at more speedy conclusions.

There are four reasons why we should report progress and I shall put them as briefly as I can. First, there is no doubt that this is an important constitutional Bill, which requires considerable thought and consideration. On two or three occasions when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had no ready answer to points put by hon. Members, he resorted to the White Paper and read out important and significant passages such as:
Political stability, economic recovery and the defeat of terrorism go hand in hand…There is a direct link between the creation of a durable and fair system of government and the ending of the violence which has brought so much suffering to Protestant and Catholic alike…The Government's proposals do not require any group in Northern Ireland to compromise its deeply held beliefs. They provide an opportunity for both sides to create a workable form of government in the interests of the common good and in the face of the urgency of the Province's problems. It will be for the people elected to a Northern Ireland Assembly to decide whether they are prepared to adopt this approach.
This is not just any item of Government legislation. It requires the greatest careful thought and consideration by men of good will to avoid political instability, lack of economic recovery and, worse, the terrorism that may continue or escalate. The passage of the Bill has not so far given us much opportunity for the necessary quiet, careful and helpful consideration.

Hon. Members may think it amusing if I refer again to the fact that I have been waiting 18 hours to make a speech, but that underlines the fact that we have sped through, rather than considered carefully, something which came upon us quickly. The White Paper was published in April and there was a time lapse before we were assured that it would be debated. I did not take part in the debate. I do not remember whether I sought to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. Within two weeks, the Bill was published and we had the Second Reading. Now, barely into June, we are in Committee on a Bill of great constitutional importance.

Even as we have been debating the Bill there has been, in effect, a guillotine. We can pretend that there has not, but on amendment after amendment there has been a guillotine in the form of a closure. I do not begrudge the Secretary of State the need for speed, but we have hurtled through clause 1. I see you, Mr. Weatherill, moving to the edge of your chair as though you think that I am about
326
wander from the relevant points. It is significant that clause 2, which we are next to discuss, is very much consequential upon clause 1.

The fact that at a quarter to two in the morning of Thursday of this week I am unable, practised as I am, to make my point to you, Mr. Weatherill, is some indication that our ability to think clearly and to express ourselves adequately is somewhat blurred and blunted. [Interruption.] I concede to my hon. Friends that I might be the first of the ninepins to go down, such is my inadequacy. I noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) made some slips of the tongue which can only have been occasioned by great tiredness, resulting from the intense concentration which he has given to the matter.

Clause 2 is dependent and consequential upon clause 1. A number of complicated points have been discussed. Some have not been discussed. Some have been touched on. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has dealt with matters with great skill and care. Lest he thinks otherwise, I have nothing but the greatest admiration for, among other things, his hope that the Bill will achieve the end which he wishes, hoping that hope itself will be salvaged from the wreck of hope. That is the impression that he has given, and I have great admiration for that attitude.

We must have time to consider the significance not only of what we have debated but of what we have not debated in the context of the replies we have been getting from my right hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough has alluded to the local government inquiry. I do not know whether that is important. It may be irrelevant. The only commitment in our manifesto was to local government reform. That must have some bearing upon the importance of this constitutional Bill.

The only persistence is of my failure at this late hour, try as I might to concentrate and to have my judgment and my explications clear, to persuade you, Mr. Weatherill, that, because clause 2 is so dependent upon clause 1, we must have a break to enable us to consider, in the cool light of day and after sufficient sleep, the ramifications of clause 1 as they affect our contributions on clause 2.

Apart from anything else, it may be that a reconsideration of the speech I was about to make on clause 1 and its relevance to clause 2 will mean that the proceedings will be shortened substantially. Many of the things that I was hoping to say on clause 1 may be irrelevant. If I think about it, my speech may in the end be much shorter than it might otherwise have been, to the great assistance of the Committee and the inspiration of my hon. Friends.

327
That is the first point. Surely, in a matter of such importance, what we are about to discuss is so much dependent upon a sensible consideration of what we have just discussed that it is necessary for us to take time to consider the matter more fully.

The second point is that our judgments—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis), for whom I have the greatest respect, is very impatient. He is a man of great restraint. His impatience indicates the impatience which is being felt generally by hon. Members not just at my speech but at the fact that we are not getting anywhere very fast because we are past consideration of the kind merited by the Bill. My second point is that there have been many indications of impatience—

There have been manifestations of impatience, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford has just underlined them. There have been manifestations of irritation. There have been manifestations of over-exuberance leading to ill-judged comments from one colleague to another. The time has really come to cool it. The atmosphere is such that we should go away and reflect coolly.

My third point is that we have to consider other people. I am not alluding to the fact that those of us who are concerned about proper arrangements for Northern Ireland may be inadvertently holding here a large number of colleagues who have not very much interest in the minutiae of the Bill and come into the Chamber to see how quickly our deliberations are moving. I am mindful that many people are involved in every hour that we spend here longer than is strictly necessary. It is not just our colleagues, ourselves, our wives and our families; it is also the people who serve us—the staff of the House, the Clerks, the civil servants, the Hansard reporters, the messengers, the policemen and representatives of the press. Everyone is involved in this. If the choice is to shut up and go home or to let this measure go through without proper care, which would be a negation of democracy and of the reason why we are here, I suggest that we do the former and return to the matter refreshed.

For three very important reasons—and I underline the importance of them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Four."] If some of my hon. Friends are complaining that I ought to add a fourth, I must tell them that I do not seek to delay the Committee. I am trying to make a reasoned, sensible and useful contribution to the debate on this motion. There are three very cogent reasons why we should say "Enough is enough. Let us draw stumps." Let us go away, think about it, and come back refreshed so that the contribution which each of us makes to this very important Bill is a good one and not the bad one that might result if we are too hurried.

No doubt presently the Secretary of State will be addressing you, Mr. Weatherill, on this motion, and it is obvious that his view of it will weigh most with the Committee. I put to you one or two considerations before the right hon. Gentleman comes to do that.

We have made progress in that clause 1, which is in many senses the principal clause of the Bill and contains most, though not all, of the major matters of principle in the Bill, has now been disposed of. Many of the major debates which had to take place have already taken place on clause 1. In that literal sense, the Secretary of State is entitled to consider that he has made substantial progress with the Bill.

However, at today's sitting there has been progress on the Bill in a different and more important sense. You will be aware, Mr. Weatherill, that the Bill is bitterly opposed my almost every section of political opinion in Northern Ireland, the Province to which it has to apply. It has been a matter of bewilderment and incomprehension to those of us who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland that the reasons which appear so clear to us why the Bill with which the Secretary of State clearly and sincerely hopes to confer a benefit upon the Province will evidently have the opposite effect. We have been unable to understand, until today's sitting, why the Secretary of State appeared to close his mind to the reforms which, in the view of almost every political section in Northern Ireland, would be beneficial to the Province and helpful to its conditions and administration.

What happened today, and the reason why we made progress, was that the Secretary of State made a remarkable speech which began to disclose—I cannot say that it fully disclosed—that his mind was more open than had previously appeared to the reforms which many of us wish to see for the sake of Northern Ireland and our constituents. It also began to disclose the differences between us—the differences of perception—which have been the cause of this mutual incomprehension as to the foreseeable effects of the Bill.

At present, the Secretary of State's speech is only in shorthand. In a few hours—certainly before the next sitting of the Committee, which may be next week—that speech will be available in Hansard and we shall be able to study it carefully. We shall be able to define in that speech those points which can still be exploited within the framework of the Bill and bring about some reconciliation between the view of the right hon. Gentleman and the views of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, although I speak only of those who have opposed it from the point of view of Northern Ireland.

That will not be possible if we are to proceed now with the subsequent clauses of the Bill. For practical and psychological reasons, that will make it impossible for the disclosure of mutual positions, such as took place during this sitting, to produce the benefits for Northern Ireland that the Bill ought to produce. For example, after debate, and partly in response to a speech by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), the Secretary of State undertook to table an amendment to clause 2. That will be an amendment to which severe exception will be taken not only by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) but, I should imagine, by most Northern Ireland Members. Nevertheless, it is of great importance for clarification of the working and intentions of the Bill. What I have just said would not be disputed by the right
329
hon. Member for Mansfield, in response to whom the undertaking was made, nor, indeed, by the Secretary of State.

If we now proceed with clause 2, that amendment will not appear until Report. If we report progress now, it will be possible to study clause 2 with the addition of that clarificatory amendment in the name of the Secretary of State.

2 am

I do not see how it could be disputed from either side of the Committee that that would not be to the advantage of our proceedings. I hope that the Secretary of State, who has repeatedly passionately disclosed his sense of the importance of the Bill for which he is responsible, will listen to my plea that, for the benefit which he will bring to the consideration and improvement of this measure, he should report progress and allow an interval for the mutual study of our respective positions and for the tabling of Government amendments to the next clause.

I hope that just to gain a few hours—and hours gained at this time of night are frequently lost in subsequent procedures—the Secretary of State will not throw away the advantages which he has disclosed to the Committee by simply pressing on with the Bill.

I draw the Committee's attention to the progress that we have made. We have disposed not only of clause 1 but of three substantial issues. We have disposed of the West Lothian question. When that question arose in Scottish devolution debates, several days were taken. On this occasion, the question has been dealt with with considerable speed. It would be out of order for us now to refer to the West Lothian question.

We have dealt with local government. Hon. Members have explained how we fought a contest with a manifesto containing undertakings for local government in Northern Ireland. We have spent many hours dealing with and disposing of that issue. It would be out of order for those of us, no matter how strongly we may feel about that promise, to revert to that matter.

We have also dealt with the referendum. It would be out of order to come back to it. The referendum issue took many hours, or days, of debate when we considered it in the context of Scottish devolution. It was dealt with today. Those substantial matters are now completely discussed. Hon. Members could have made long speeches on any of the main issues. They could have detained the Committee unduly on any one. The opportunities for making long speeches are over. We have dealt with only a small number of amendments, but the amendments selected deal with comparatively narrow issues.

The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) seeks to substitute the word "Orders" for "Order."

I was pointing out that we have made a great deal of progress and that the debates will now be short and sharp. Not even hon. Members, such as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who can speak for a minute or two if he wishes, will be able to say very much on whether it is "Order" or "Orders" on the coming amendments. Indeed, most of the amendments, if they are not probing amendments, relate to narrow detailed issues.

330
Some days ago my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was good enough to say that he would make available his notes on the Bill, and I have had the advantage of seeing them. I am grateful to him, because they explain most lucidly much of the detailed matters arising out of the rest of the Bill. Many of the probing amendments and points that we might raise in an interrogatory fashion will no longer be necessary. My right hon. Friend has taken a sensible course in shortening the debates from now on, because many of the matters that we might have raised will not now be necessary.

I suggest that we have galloped on well in dealing with clause 1, which contains the substance of the Bill. From now on, we shall be dealing with matters almost of minutiae—certainly matters which are subordinate to clause 1. It might be correct to say that numerically we have not made much progress, but in substance we have made much progress. It would therefore be right and sensible, at this hour, to report progress.

A number of hon. Gentlemen, including the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) mentioned the progress that we have made so far. I accept that we have made substantial progress, but I find it difficult to accept that we have made rapid progress. We have spent 18 hours discussing clause 1, excluding the time that we have taken on Divisions, and I do not see that as a description of rapid progress. We have given careful consideration to a constitutional Bill, but there is now plenty of time to proceed, before the end of the Committee stage, to make further progress on the Bill.

A few other matters were raised, in particular by the right hon. Member for Down, South. It seems to me a remarkable concept of debate, and somewhat foreign to this House, that when a Minister or any other Member makes a speech, it is proposed that there should be an adjournment for days while textual analysis is put on that speech and it is subjected to that sort of examination. The whole concept of debate in this House, of which the right hon. Gentleman is one of the greatest exponents, is that one should be able to respond quickly and promptly to points that are made in debate. So far, there has been no difficulty in our proceedings in doing that, and I see no difficulty arising in the future.

Secondly, the amendment to clause 2 will be tabled on Report, and there will be ample time to consider it when we reach that stage.

Does not the Minister realise that something very significant happened this afternoon, when the Secretary of State disclosed two things? He disclosed the real nature of cross-community consent—which, incidentally, I had known about for quite a long time but which came as news to certain of my Northern Ireland colleagues—and he also said that for the first time he was proposing to yield to the plea made by the official Opposition to introduce an entirely new amendment.

The Minister will say that there is nothing unique in that, but I beg him to realise that those announcements have completely transformed our attitude to clause 2 and to the Bill in general. I firmly believe that time should elapse before we can assess the impact of those announcements on political thinking in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) would be the first to concede that that impact
331
could be very serious. Frankly, it is in the Government's interests that Northern Ireland Members should have the opportunity to go back and—I shall not say try to sell those new ideas—perhaps clarify the thinking behind them.

That is a point of view, but it is not one that I accept. I do not accept that there were any radical disclosures about the nature of cross-community support. The Government's approach to that has been clear, certainly since publication of the White Paper. In any case, the amendments with which we shall be dealing if the motion is rejected would be in no way affected by such alleged disclosures.

The Minister must face the fact that the Secretary of State's statement that the 70 per cent. must have cross-community support makes nonsense of having the 50 per cent. plus one in the Bill as well. One does not need 70 per cent. with cross-community support, but only 50 per cent. plus one. This is a new departure and a revelation to my party. It goes against the conditions that were put to delegation after delegation. I pleaded with the Secretary of State today to tell us exactly what amendment he intends to propose so that in all fairness we may consider it.

It is all very well for hon. Members who do not live in Northern Ireland. They will not have to live with the effects of the Bill. We shall. The future of our people is concerned in the matters dealt with by clause 2. It is only right that we should know what is proposed. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that there is nothing new. There is indeed something new, and it has come as a bombshell to those of us who remember the undertakings given by the Secretary of State to delegation after delegation, that there were two ways to get power—70 per cent., or 50 per cent. plus one so long as there is cross-community support. We now discover that the Opposition suggestion is to be accepted and that the 70 per cent., too, must have cross-community support. That destroys the undertakings that we felt were made to us in good faith.

I shall not repeat any more of the argument that I made to the Secretary of State. The record of that long debate is in Hansard. I shall examine carefully the report of the Secretary of State's speech when it is available and we shall see where the matter rests. In all fairness, however, he should meet the representatives of Northern Ireland and the two major Unionist groupings in the House.

The two major parties in Northern Ireland are represented here and have made that plea to the Minister. Strangely, however, the one representative in the House of the republican community, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), has not turned up. Does he believe that everything is all right from his point of view because the Government intend to give in to the proposals sought by his grouping? That is a great worry to Northern Ireland Members. I hope that the Minister will now fairly meet us on this problem.

Whatever weight the Committee gives to the hon. Gentleman's two points—on the amendment,
332
which there will be ample time to discuss later in our proceedings, or on the concept of cross-community support—neither argument should prevent the committee from continuing its proceedings now.

I wish to clear up one small point. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) referred to certain phrases from my right hon. Friend's remarkable speech earlier, to the effect that in the course of consultations and inquiries in the Province since taking up office as Secretary of State he had frequently raised the question of local government powers. My hon. Friend seems to have constructed from that the idea that some formal inquiry had been launched. I assure him that that is not the case. I can assure him that that is not the case. My right hon. Friend came to the conclusion that he put before the House Commons after the many meetings that have taken place since he assumed office.

2.15 am

I am disappointed, knowing some of my hon. Friends as well as I do, that they should apparently be running out of stamina and commitment at this early hour. They are all Members who have been renowned for their vigorous contributions to debate. Having had this brief interlude in our proceedings, I suspect that they will find restored vigour for the debates that are yet to take place.

I find it difficult to accept the arguments of the right hon. Member for Down, South and of some of my hon. Friends that time gained at this time of the night might subsequently be lost or that the reputation of the House of Commons should be at stake. My experience during my years in the House is that frequently at this time of night, when the attendance is thinner than at other times of the day, those of absolute commitment to the debates that take place are present and there are debates of the highest standards and not the lowest.

My right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and myself are grateful for the solicitous remarks that have been made about us. It will not have escaped the Committee's attention that so far in this sitting the burden of answering debates has been borne by my right hon. Friend. The Committee will be aware that it has heard today one of the most effective speeches that has been made in recent years. I do not think that we need to worry about my right hon. Friend's stamina. However, I can assure my hon. Friends that from now on in this sitting my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and myself will be bearing—

—the burden of replying to debates. We have not taken part in the proceedings of the Committee so far today and in Shakespeare's words—perhaps the physical analogy may not be appropriate to myself—
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips, Straining upon the start.
I hope that we can now make some more progress with the Bill.